Borg : Backs Federer for Wimbledon Title

[CanonNo1]

To quote a fellow poster
"Fire away at Borg now trolls... Borgs opinion > yours "

“For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. It’s always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.

Former Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova agreed.


“It’s a combination of how many grand slams have you won, how many tournaments have you won, how many years you were number one and he’s got all those combinations,” she said.


“The body of work is phenomenal and now he has got that French Open and I think he can just go on and sip Margaritas for the rest of his life.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_y...slug=reu-wimbledonborg&prov=reuters&type=lgns


wonder if fellow poster (or a fellow poster) has anything to say on the above?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Don't forget Sampras.

“What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and probably will never, ever happen again,” Sampras said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it.”

“He just is a great, great player that is a credit to the sport and is a positive influence for young kids and just tennis in general,” Sampras said. “It looks pretty tough to beat now with 14 majors, and I’m sure he’s going to go on and win a lot more.”

I wonder if he's qualified enough to have earned the respect of that certain poster.

 

[BLPC08]

Borg has predicted something like the last 8 winners of the tournament. I remember everyone canning him for thinking Nadal would win last year - and he was right on again.

I can't argue with Borg this year either - Federer to defeat Murray in the final.

 

[alinghi]

Borg has predicted something like the last 8 winners of the tournament. I remember everyone canning him for thinking Nadal would win last year - and he was right on again.

I can't argue with Borg this year either - Federer to defeat Murray in the final.

How does Borg know that Murray will be in the bottom half?

 

[alinghi]

To quote a fellow poster
"Fire away at Borg now trolls... Borgs opinion > yours "


http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_y...slug=reu-wimbledonborg&prov=reuters&type=lgns


wonder if fellow poster (or a fellow poster) has anything to say on the above?

Yep, I do.

Federer will have to play a lot better to win Wimbledon than he did to win Roland Garros.

 

[Kaan]

Borg and Sampras's opinion > Total Powers opinion

 

[BLPC08]

How does Borg know that Murray will be in the bottom half?

Borg thinks Federer will win......... and I think Murray will be the Runner Up (if he is in the bottom half).

Nadal is half fit - wont make it past the QF stage.

Novak is struggling mentally - will need a VERY easy run to make it to the Semis.

Roddick has been to the final on multiple occassions - if he is on a different side of the draw to Murray and Federer I think he will make the final.

I also give Fernando Gonzalez a rough chance - he is in sensational form and has the game to take him far in the tournament.

 

[robert_demonboy]

I think he will prove to be right yet again.

 

[Total Power]

haha i am famous here Carry on kiddos, i love me fishies

P.S. Cannon i agree fed is the favourite with rafa on one leg one.However rafa is fully fit is a different story alltogether you know that

 

[CanonNo1]

haha i am famous here Carry on kiddos, i love me fishies

P.S. Cannon i agree fed is the favourite with rafa on one leg one.However rafa is fully fit is a different story alltogether you know that

Yep, just like the French - or was he tired?? Anyway, borgs opinion >>> yours. Borg won 5 wimbledon titles, what have you done in your life? (refer to note 1)

But im not sure he can win. After all ... "fed is ageing and history shows that he will be on the decline from now on.... rafa and nole will only improve for here. Fed has 1 more year to win it, cause from 09 it will all be nole and rafa show "(refer to note 2)

Not a bad start in 09 for someone in declince.

Note 1 - Quote borrowed from TP (circa 09/07)
Note 2 - Quote borrowed from TP (circa 09/07)

 

[Papa Juggs]

I'll bet he secretly hopes Soderling gets up.

 

[Total Power]

Yep, just like the French - or was he tired?? Anyway, borgs opinion >>> yours. Borg won 5 wimbledon titles, what have you done in your life? (refer to note 1)

But im not sure he can win. After all ... "fed is ageing and history shows that he will be on the decline from now on.... rafa and nole will only improve for here. Fed has 1 more year to win it, cause from 09 it will all be nole and rafa show "(refer to note 2)

Not a bad start in 09 for someone in declince.

Note 1 - Quote borrowed from TP (circa 09/07)
Note 2 - Quote borrowed from TP (circa 09/07)

Rafa was hurt, i am not making an excuse..he was hurt and he was up against a guy who playing the match of his lifetime or maybe you think that he is skipping the wimbledin intentionally to show that he is hurt? which is occams razor anyway, so take your pick.

History DOES show after 26 a player usually goes on the decline...are you mentally challenged or what?? i based my opinion based on case studies.Can you tell me how many players actually continued their dominance from 27-30 years of age? (except agassi).Even sampras's dominance came to an end.I still stand by my call federer is on a relative decline , which will only accelerate from here on. Bump my comment in 9 months


P.S Your arrival here since feds resurgance just proves my point..the bandwagon fed fans were all but gone from here and now they are back. Be prepared to pack your bags soon again...trust me the time is coming

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Who cares if he's injured? That comes with the territory of playing the style of tennis that he does. If you take the good, which is his short lived domination, you must also take the bad (fatigue and injuries).

 

[Total Power]

Who cares if he's injured? That comes with the territory of playing the style of tennis that he does. If you take the good, which is his short lived domination, you must also take the bad (fatigue and injuries).

Playing style got nothing to do with his problems.Ofcourse you dont know anything about rafa.He is having knee problems since 16, he has acute tendonitis in both knee caps ever since he starting playing and its been bothering him since ages.Ofcourse wear and tear contributed to a more serious problem,but do your own research you will see he had this problem since childhood.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Someone should tell Borg and Navratilova that we are in a transitional period and Fed is only good not great. McEnroe and Sampras need reminding as well.

Fed's only defeat on grass in the past 6 years happened when he was recovering from illness and unable to last 5 sets but he has had no opposition of course !!!!

 

[CanonNo1]

Rafa was hurt, i am not making an excuse..he was hurt and he was up against a guy who playing the match of his lifetime or maybe you think that he is skipping the wimbledin intentionally to show that he is hurt? which is occams razor anyway, so take your pick.

History DOES show after 26 a player usually goes on the decline...are you mentally challenged or what?? i based my opinion based on case studies.Can you tell me how many players actually continued their dominance from 27-30 years of age? (except agassi).Even sampras's dominance came to an end.I still stand by my call federer is on a relative decline , which will only accelerate from here on. Bump my comment in 9 months


P.S Your arrival here since feds resurgance just proves my point..the bandwagon fed fans were all but gone from here and now they are back. Be prepared to pack your bags soon again...trust me the time is coming

Of course Rafa was hurt - he's always f##king hurt when he loses isn't he??? US Open - hurt? Tired? ... Madrid - hurt? Tired? Altitude? ... Paris - hurt? Tired? ... Wimbledon - hurt? Federer wasn't sick with Glandular Fever and recovering for most of last year was he? That was pure fiction right? Surely, being able to paly at such a high intensity for 6 years is a sign of genius???

In one sentence you say Federer will start declining because history shows he should, and then you are claiming that you are predicting it to happen and should be lauded for it? If all the historical evidence suggests players decline after 27 what exactly are you saying that is so outlandish and indicative of being pre-emptive?

I'd be really keen to read about these case studies as well- are these published on the net somewhere? Although, I can name you a player not in decline after 26 - Roger Federer (what is is ... 4? 5? Grand Slam finals since he turned 26?).

Now you are prefacing your previous quotes with "relative" decline. I don't believe you ever said "relative" and you were quite strong in suggesting straight out "decline". In fact you were also quite strong in suggesting 2009 would be the year of Rafa and Nole. Nole has done a lot hasn't he.

Seriously, your time of being able to post utter nonsense is coming to an end. There are far more knowledgeable tennis supporters (as opposed to Nadal fan boys) than yourself on this board. The quicker you stop posting crap the better everyones life will be!

p.s any chance you could implement a little bit of grammar into your posts. It takes a good 15 minutes to decipher.

 

[CanonNo1]

Someone should tell Borg and Navratilova that we are in a transitional period and Fed is only good not great. McEnroe and Sampras need reminding as well.

Fed's only defeat on grass in the past 6 years happened when he was recovering from illness and unable to last 5 sets but he has had no opposition of course !!!!

What would Borg, Navratilova, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras and even Nadal know anyway? They've won almost 100 grand slams between them (singles and doubles). But if TP reckons he's not a great then surely that counts for more than them right?

The transitional period that has lasted for 6 years. According to this theory, Nadal has also dominated on Clay in a transitional period so really he's 4 french opens are bit tainted right and how could he possibly be considered the best clay courter ever? Kuerten, Courier, Brugera, Muster they'll all rank above him right? For that matter, his Wimbledon and Aus opens are tainted as well right, they were won in a transitional period.

I'll be writing to the ATP and ITF requesting that all tournaments played between 2003 and 2009 or 2010? (TP - When is the transitional period ending???) should have big bold asterix with a disclaimer that these were won in a "transitional phase" in the game where there were only duds playing.

 

[Ricketts]

Of course Rafa was hurt - he's always f##king hurt when he loses isn't he??? US Open - hurt? Tired? ... Madrid - hurt? Tired? Altitude? ... Paris - hurt? Tired? ... Wimbledon - hurt? Federer wasn't sick with Glandular Fever and recovering for most of last year was he? That was pure fiction right?

Obviously this stuff only applies to Nadal....

 

[adii_7]

if he meets haas on graas , hes a goner. bookmark it

 

[lmaohelp]

Of course Rafa was hurt - he's always f##king hurt when he loses isn't he??? US Open - hurt? Tired? ... Madrid - hurt? Tired? Altitude? ... Paris - hurt? Tired? ... Wimbledon - hurt? Federer wasn't sick with Glandular Fever and recovering for most of last year was he? That was pure fiction right? Surely, being able to paly at such a high intensity for 6 years is a sign of genius???

In one sentence you say Federer will start declining because history shows he should, and then you are claiming that you are predicting it to happen and should be lauded for it? If all the historical evidence suggests players decline after 27 what exactly are you saying that is so outlandish and indicative of being pre-emptive?

I'd be really keen to read about these case studies as well- are these published on the net somewhere? Although, I can name you a player not in decline after 26 - Roger Federer (what is is ... 4? 5? Grand Slam finals since he turned 26?).

Now you are prefacing your previous quotes with "relative" decline. I don't believe you ever said "relative" and you were quite strong in suggesting straight out "decline". In fact you were also quite strong in suggesting 2009 would be the year of Rafa and Nole. Nole has done a lot hasn't he.

Seriously, your time of being able to post utter nonsense is coming to an end. There are far more knowledgeable tennis supporters (as opposed to Nadal fan boys) than yourself on this board. The quicker you stop posting crap the better everyones life will be!

p.s any chance you could implement a little bit of grammar into your posts. It takes a good 15 minutes to decipher.

couldn't agree more.

also is fed wins Wimbledon, does he take no.1 because nadal misses the tournament completely?

 

[Total Power]

Someone should tell Borg and Navratilova that we are in a transitional period and Fed is only good not great. McEnroe and Sampras need reminding as well.

Fed's only defeat on grass in the past 6 years happened when he was recovering from illness and unable to last 5 sets but he has had no opposition of course !!!!

Illness lmao! i guess it continued into aus open You are absolutely pathetic. Does 13-7 mean anything to you??

 

[Total Power]

Of course Rafa was hurt - he's always f##king hurt when he loses isn't he??? US Open - hurt? Tired? ... Madrid - hurt? Tired? Altitude? ... Paris - hurt? Tired? ... Wimbledon - hurt? Federer wasn't sick with Glandular Fever and recovering for most of last year was he? That was pure fiction right? Surely, being able to paly at such a high intensity for 6 years is a sign of genius???

In one sentence you say Federer will start declining because history shows he should, and then you are claiming that you are predicting it to happen and should be lauded for it? If all the historical evidence suggests players decline after 27 what exactly are you saying that is so outlandish and indicative of being pre-emptive?

I'd be really keen to read about these case studies as well- are these published on the net somewhere? Although, I can name you a player not in decline after 26 - Roger Federer (what is is ... 4? 5? Grand Slam finals since he turned 26?).

Now you are prefacing your previous quotes with "relative" decline. I don't believe you ever said "relative" and you were quite strong in suggesting straight out "decline". In fact you were also quite strong in suggesting 2009 would be the year of Rafa and Nole. Nole has done a lot hasn't he.

Seriously, your time of being able to post utter nonsense is coming to an end. There are far more knowledgeable tennis supporters (as opposed to Nadal fan boys) than yourself on this board. The quicker you stop posting crap the better everyones life will be!

p.s any chance you could implement a little bit of grammar into your posts. It takes a good 15 minutes to decipher.

When did i say at US open he was tired? He was hurt at F.O its a FACT. You post your shit cause you are obsessed with me after getting slapped around by me in these discussions.Which proves why you start threads dedicated to me ( i am flattered ) and continue with your obsession.

Federer is still on a decline cause he has lost his invincible status.Now he is beatable which he wasnt a few years ago.

So my prediction about nole dominating didnt come true.Big deal, how about my past predictions about rafa winning wimbledon and becoming world number 1 coming true when everyone called me names then`?? you ignore that. You win some you lose some.Atleast u need have have balls to put it in line unlike you.

Regarding Fed: yes his glandular fever lasted 1 and half years didnt it? and thats why he got to the final ofall the slams, cause he had glandular fever?do you ever realise the shit you type??? Its glandular fever cause his balls shrink everytime he faces nadal ,Funny how the symptoms never come out while facing another opponent. Shall i call it glanadal fever instead? i agree with you then

So STFU being a grammar police and realise that not everyone in the world likes federer and quit following me around like an obsessed monkey

P.S decline after 26 is a case study done by me.Why dont you do your study of the past greats and tell me if they are true or not???

 

[gaelictiogar]

Illness lmao! i guess it continued into aus open You are absolutely pathetic. Does 13-7 mean anything to you??

13-7 means that when they have met Rafa has generally had the best of it for which of course there is one good reason....they have usually met on Rafa's surface.

When not on his surface Rafa has had a coupleof good 5 set wins but trails overall. Rafa's failure to final regularly over a periosd of time on surfaces other than clay protects his H2H record.

Anyway the Rafa thing os over. The poor lad had to destroy his knees to replace anill Federer. Let's move on from that ugly hammering intense lack of true talent and back to grace and elegance.

 

[Total Power]

13-7 means that when they have met Rafa has generally had the best of it for which of course there is one good reason....they have usually met on Rafa's surface.

When not on his surface Rafa has had a coupleof good 5 set wins but trails overall. Rafa's failure to final regularly over a periosd of time on surfaces other than clay protects his H2H record.

Anyway the Rafa thing os over. The poor lad had to destroy his knees to replace anill Federer. Let's move on from that ugly hammering intense lack of true talent and back to grace and elegance.

so now 5 set wins dont count?? and rafa is finished? lol geez you love to have the egg on your face dont you?

if you dont count clay, i dont count grass too...which means rafa is 1-0 in slams

Whenever he meets rafa face to face his elegance goes away.He turns into a very ordinary player.Face it, its a FACT! 5 > 2, 13 > 7 and clay DOES count. Why shouldnt it count? cause you say so???

 

[Ricketts]

... and 14 > 6.